Page 1 of 11
Identity Conference 2008: Managing Identity in New Zealand
“Do you know who I am?”:
Exploring identity and privacy
Marie Shroff
Keynote address
Te Papa
29-30 April 2008
[Slide 1: Opening Slide]
Kia ora tatou.
This conference is very appropriately being held in Te Papa, the storehouse of treasures of personal and national identity.
Introduction
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion and debateat this gathering. It is a privilege and a challenge to follow the Minister – but I will do my best!
All of you here today are interested in, and most of you are engaged with e-govt, identity management and the digital world. There is no doubt the e-govt future can allow us to explore technological marvels and efficiencies to serve the citizen better. And we have the exciting prospect of being a world leader in this space.
I am glad to be involved at thestart ofthe e-govt endeavour. I share your enthusiasm for the exciting possibilities. But, as Privacy Commissioner, I ameven happier to be able to influence its development. My job is to advocate for balance of privacy and efficiency - to help maintain trust in the system by the users; and protect them from the many possibleharms that can arise from misuse of their personal information. We’ve been working alongside departments to ensure that good privacy practices are considered every step of the way, whatever system is used. The aim is tobuild protectionsinto the foundations, the architecture, and the speedy highways of the interactive environment.
Digital information is the currency of both business and government in the 21st century. Most is personal information about individuals. Technically, the way is now open to manage that information, not only across government, but also across a wider commercial and civil society.
[Slide 2: E-eek]
I should say that consistent with my message today, my slides are about people and have little text – and absolutely no diagrams! (Slides are courtesy of Chris Slane, our pet but not tame, cartoonist, and of Te Papa, and are subject to copyright.)
But for the public at large, the user, the idea of "identity management" (what me?) is under the radar. One day people willwake up to the silent revolution, the hidden networks being created. When that day comes we must be able to demonstrate robust protections, openness, and real accountability. In e-govt,and in the wider digital world, we must be able to give credible, proveable reassurances – to support that all important citizen trust.
Let us imagine for a moment if citizen trust and voluntary participation in e-govt and e-commerce was lost. For example, after a series of losses of personal information like the recent UK one, passive resistance could follow,leading people to feel too insecureto give out their information, and crippling e-govtand e-commerce systems. Orthere could be active obstruction – we could face the cyber equivalent of French truck drivers obstructing the motorway and bringing the French economy to a grinding halt. Criminal attacks could also damage confidence.I won't dwell further on it; but suchnightmare scenarios are betterconfronted now– so we may avoid them in the future. Of course that is one reason we are here today.
So I want to talk to you today about why what you are doing in the digital world is so important – but for a different reason from efficiency. Digital information is the new currency. But identity is at the very heart of what it means to be human. Enthusiasm for the cyber revolution and the benefits it can deliver need to be tempered by an equal enthusiasm and respect for the human, the individual, that each of us is. We must be constantly mindful of why identity matters– at its extreme, why people have and will continue to be prepared to die for their identity; or may be put to death because of their identity.
Today we are at the cusp of very real and significant change: socially, technologically and politically. Identity, and the way we manage it, will define our era.
[Slide 3: Yes]
For me, as Privacy Commissioner, identity underpins and shapes privacy. We have moved a very long way from the simple concepts of the Domesday Book and the church register, when individuals identified themselves largely in relation to their village and their God. Now, in this digital age, we are generating and giving away intimate information about ourselves from the very day we are born – starting with the DNA sample taken in the newborn heelprick test. As we move through life, millions of digital records are created by us, or about us –our digital shadow.
Technology raises both problems and solutions for personal identity. Will it be the case that government and business will control our identity through the power of technology? What other options are there? To what extent can we control our “digital shadow” – or is it just a case of what goes around, sticks around? The surveillance society is with us already and serious challenges for privacy and identity management lie ahead.
Identity is full of colour, richness and feelings. People need to feel they can control their identity; to change it for legitimate reasons; and have the ability to know what other people may be doing with that identity. Through complaints to my office, I am all too familiar with the sense of loss, grievance and even despair people feel when their personal information or their identity is lost, stolen or misused. We ignore these feelings at our peril.
What is identity – plain and simple
[Slide 4: Rita]
I have rather simplistically entitled this first section: “What is identity – plain and simple”.It is simplistic because in fact I do not see a person’s identity as being either plain or simple. It is quite the opposite. Identity is layered, nuanced and variable. Rita Angus repeatedly portrayed herself in different guises, playing with her variable identities.
Identity is both a means of control and a means of self-definition. We shape, reinvent and colour our own identity; and it is shaped by social, cultural and political influences. So what are some of those influences and how do they mould our understanding of personal identity?
Identity is malleable
We are inclined to think of identity as a fixed reality. In other words: “You are who you are”. But are we? Certainly, our perception of ourselves shifts over time. At fifty-five few people will identify themselves in the same way that they did at fifteen.
There are various characteristics that tend to endure through a lifetime, such as birth date, sex and ethnicity – but even those have exceptions. There are physical characteristics, such as hair colour, eye colour and height – but even they are not absolutes. And there are a whole host of other characteristics that can and do alter: name, religion, relationship status and sexual orientation.In the Pacific region we are familiar with name changes which happen, for example, though the granting of Samoan titles; or through whangai and aiga adoptions.
These alterations may be deliberate - changing a last name or choosing a preferred first name. Others may be about feelings, perception or belief,which is reflected in behaviour,such as changes in religious or political leanings. In all cases, your identity has been moulded – sometimes dramatically, sometimes subtly.
Identity is contextual
“Context is everything”is a truism,but in the realm of identity and identity management, it is fundamental. Context affects both the range of information you might reasonably be asked to provide and the selection you make about what you willingly reveal.
Think of some of the varying roles you have:
- As an employee or employer
- As a partner or spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend
- As a parent
- As a sister or brother, son or daughter, step-son or step-daughter
- As a friend
- As a patient.
In each of these roles, we present slightly different faces. And think of the range of interactions: a meeting, family dinner, bedtime chat, parent-teacher interview, at the gym, at the doctor’s surgery. The means of interaction also affect what and how much we reveal, on the telephone, by video-phone, by letter, by email, face-to-face, on Facebook. How much we know about the recipient of the information has a real impact: are they a trusted friend, a new colleague, a government department employee, a neighbour, your child?
We do not tell the same story to each person. We do not tell the same story on every occasion. And we do not tell today the same story that we told 10 years ago. As Mel Brooks said:
Every human being has hundreds of separate people living under his skin.
Identity is a journey with dimensions of time and space. Pinning it down is a task that would thwart Hercules.
[Slide 5: I AM]
Colin McCahon depicted identity in relation to God; and a new godless world. (Thanks to Colin for the idea – the original is unfortunately in the NAG in Canberra!) The very idea that every person might be identified individually has evolved over the centuries. It is only relatively recently that we have had the desire and the tools to try to identify people uniquely.
For instance, without reliable records of birth, a person’s recollection of their own age might be more – or less – accurate. One of my own ancestors (perhaps deliberately) appears to have lopped 10 years off his age when he emigrated to New Zealand!
Naming conventions have changed too. Alain Corbin notes the trend in the nineteenth century for a wider range of first names to be used:[1]
As the decades passed, new first names were introduced at an accelerating rate that reflected an increased need for individuation, a wish to differentiate between generations, and a desire to conform to new norms set by the dominant class.
The means by which we validate identity have expanded enormously. The fluidity of identity – before photographs and fingerprints – is illustrated by the famous historical example of Martin Guerre, who lived in Artigat in southwest France in the 1500s. After being accused of stealing grain in 1548, Guerre suddenly disappeared. Eight years later, another man appeared, claiming to be Martin Guerre. He came to be accepted and lived for three years in the village with Guerre’s wife. After some time, the true of identity of the imposter was exposed as Arnaud du Tilh and a trial was held. The evidence of witnesses was conflicting, and it was not until the true Martin Guerre appeared (now with a wooden leg after being at war) that the imposter’s fate was sealed and he was executed for adultery - and fraud.[2]
In this same venue, just over two years ago, former Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Paul Chadwick[3] evocatively described himself as “…a sack of skin…”. Authenticating that sack of skin is, he noted, a legitimate practical task. But:
"…we err if we think that by authenticating the sack we identify the person."
“Authentication of identity” then, is a process that may be more – or less – reliable and may include many or few elements. The selection of those elements is carefully assessed to serve particular aims. It is an approximation of personhood, but it is not the person.
“Identity” itself is something quite different; bigger and more complex. It evolves and adapts, it has shade and light. Identity defies easy definition or classification and has the tendency to shift across whatever boundaries are set up to contain it. In this field“certainty is illusory”.[4]
Why do we care so much about identity anyway? : Identity and Culture
[Slide 6: Goldie]
But why does identity matter so much? This Goldie portrait tells a story of personal and cultural strength and subtlety. Identity is about defining ourselves and being defined by others. When it comes to identity, getting things almost right just doesn’t work. We care too much about it for that. Identity is linked to our place in the world. It is both personal and public. Identity is about belonging and connectedness and culture.
In New Zealand, we are rich in examples of identity and culture interweaving. Many of you will know the proverb "Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au” which demonstrates the link of Te Iwi O Whanganui to theWhanganuiRiver. An approximate translation is “I am the river and the river is me”.
Personal identity, then, for many of us is not just something that exists in the here and now. It is interwoven with past and future generations. It connects us to others. In the context of whakapapa, personal identity derives from your connection to and association with others. That enduring story is a taonga that needs to be protected.
But why do we want to manage identity? – A functional view
So why would we want to try to “manage” the shape-shifting idea of identity? Paul Chadwick identifies four aims of identity management.[5]These are to verify that a person is who they say they are in order to:
- enforce binding obligations
- determine rightful eligibility
- isolate the reasonably suspect
- brand and track the duly convicted.
Knowledge, Power and Control
[Slide 7: Border Control]
Until 1832, prisoners were branded with a hot iron to establish their identity.[6] “In the USA, Japanese Americans were singled out for internment during World War II through the – normally illegal – use of census data. More recently, many Muslim Americans are branded as unfit for travel using no-fly lists or are otherwise subject to racial profiling ….”[7]
Control of identity brings with it power – and control over the person. As I have said, at the extreme, people have died for their identity – or have been killed for their identity. The use of identity cards and racial brandingbecame notorious in the World Wars and established distrust in many identification techniques. That spectre is often raised when extreme uses of technology are proposed - for example the use of microchips to identify humans – perhaps children, or the bewildered elderly.
Identity assists other people to define who you are – in a social context, and in a government or business context. But the ability to confidently distinguish between individuals is relatively recent. In the criminal justice context, of course, certain identification of the person, before conviction, is essential to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Identity in this situation is linked inextricably to culpability. Eye-witnesses were,and still are, relied upon to identify criminals; a notoriously error-prone approach. But it is only relatively recently that technology has given greater certainty, and greater humanity.
Our techniques have certainly evolved. In an effort to introduce some order to a largely unsystematic process, a French law enforcement officer, Alphonse Bertillon, developed in the late 1880s a method to accurately identify criminals. This involved extensive classification and sub-classification based upon physical measurements.[8]
Bertillon took measurements of certain bony portions of the body, among them the skull width, foot length, … and left middle finger. These measurements, along with hair color, eye color and front and side view photographs, were recorded on cardboard forms ...
By dividing each of the measurements into small, medium and large groupings, Bertillon could place the dimensions of any single person into one of 243 distinct categories.
Upon arrest, a criminal was measured, described and photographed. The completed card was indexed and placed in the appropriate category. In a file of 5,000 records, for example, each of the primary categories would hold only about 20 cards. It was therefore not difficult to compare the new record to each of the other cards in the same category. If a match was discovered, the new offense was recorded on the criminal's card.
The system, however, had some flaws. Measurements taken in a slightly different way by two different people could lead to varying results – and the measurements tended to change as suspects aged. It was also possible for the system to identity two people as the same person. It came to be replaced by fingerprinting.[9]Now, DNA and other methods of forensic identification have been added.
Today we debate the merits of expanding the power to collect DNA.[10]But perhaps one day DNA will eventually be regarded as being as inaccurate and outdated as the Bertillon system! Technology and science are developing at almost blinding speed.
Technological impact: “Digital shadow”; what goes around, sticks around.
[Slide 8: Pohutukawa]
Technology today isa “creator” of identity. Technology has the power to make us – and to break us.These days, teenagers "live" in the digital world. Commenting on teenagers’ use of social networking sites, Barbara Craig from VictoriaUniversity, talks about the “created” self:[11]
These pages are very much about exploring … identity, because it's a very creative space. The photos and messages - everything is about trying out who they are. What they're looking for is some sort of recognition from their peers.
We exist in multiple in cyberspace (and we may have an avatar or two) – and whatever we do leaves a “digital shadow” that grows.